First off, I want to say that mass, like energy, cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. For something to reach infinite mass within a definite shape and size would yeild infinite density. Any object with infinite density is known as a black hole. So a baseball at the speed of light becomes a black hole??! (IMG:
style_emoticons/default/compress.gif)
Speaking of, I think I poked a "hole" in relativity theory right there (I could be wrong). (IMG:
style_emoticons/default/shoot2.gif)
In addition, what sense is there for any real change in mass or density to occur with speed? I take Tesla's stance on atomic thory and all applicable theorums and say it's a bunch of HooHaa. (IMG:
style_emoticons/default/tickedoff.gif) If there is any requirement of infinite, it would be an infinite amount of energy to
accelerate any given object by the speed of light. It takes a certain amount of energy to raise something in velocity to a certain degree. The speed of light is considered to be the fastest. (IMG:
style_emoticons/default/wheelchair.gif)
It makes more sense for something to require infinite energy to accelerate to the maximum conceivable physical speed in the universe, rather than to say that one reaches an apex which is impossible to aquire in an environment with little to no friction.
Only 2.7% of any given section of the universe is matter. The rest is waveform energy. Who are the pundits at the top to act like they know everything about the universe, when they are focusing on a 2.7% section that 90% of their theorums apply to?
This post has been edited by Xenomancer: Dec 2 2007, 03:41 PM